DescentBB

Posted: **Sun Mar 28, 2010 7:58 pm**

So if Sarah Palin isn't going to run on Hope, then what is she going to run on? Despair?

Posted: **Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:07 pm**

Nope, not gonna suck on that koolaid and brainwashed tripe.

Bet, you talk like the Democrats (and Obama) have always been pursuing the right/best ... and have never wanted nothing but that.

Sorry, but a Leopard can't change it's spots any more than a Zebra can loose it's stripes. There's more than enough past history all the way up to the present of Democrats (and the Democrat party) 'playing dirty' politics combined with self-serving actions and deals behind closed doors with businesses and organizations with no interest in the public's well-being. No way can I swallow that their efforts are as rosy and clean as you just portrayed them. Besides, it's been shown repeatedly (just google a few of those prominent Democrats for YouTube videos showing their true intentions) that they are not that clean.

P.S. The same can be shown about most Republicans, too. They not exempt either.

You blindness on this matter has gotten pretty tiresome.

Posted: **Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:15 pm**

Bet51987 wrote:...It's become clearer each day that the "Make Obama Fail" mantra which is basically blocking any and all Democratic efforts to actually move this country forward... isn't working that well....

Bee

That is such a stupid thing to believe. The republicans have no power to stop the democrats so any failure on the democrats part to accomplish anything is all on them. I asked you a simple question in a related thread, if you had answered it you would have been forced to deal with that reality instead you bailed out and started trolling in other threads and now you are completely showing your wilful ignorance in this one. My guess is you need to post crap like this because you have serious doubts about your own position but don't have the courage to critically consider what it is about your positions that bother you.

Games indeed, you are already playing one with yourself.

Here, I'll post it for you again, and you can run from it again. Think of it as holy water and garlic and you're the little vampire that couldn't....

Bee you obviously aren't willing to second guess your position so I'm not going to bother continuing a one way conversation with you except to ask you why do you think the democrats had such a difficult time passing healthcare reform legislation when they have had the filibuster proof majority in the congress and the Presidency AND America overwhelmingly wanted them to pass something along those lines?

They could have easily passed a lot of very helpful provisions and had a big bipartisan support for it a long time ago due to the American people being in agreement that healthcare costs were way too high and insurance companies far to exploitive of the captive consumers.

So what stopped them from passing it right away?
The evil republicans couldn't stop them and the wonderful democrats had all the keys to the control room so you explain it please.

My answer is because they tried to use the opportunity of having the combination of complete control of both the executive, and legislative, branches of government AND the momentum of vast public support for health care cost reform and use that as a Trojan horse to introduce into law a bunch of liberal-as-hell legislation that buys them votes, power and intrusive control well beyond the mandate of the constitution. It was so blatant and awful that america recoiled in fear and disgust including many members of the democrat party!

Of course you'll reject my answer as right wing lies so please explain the truth of the matter according to Bee for all to see....
And throw in an explanation of why so much of this bill doesn't go into effect for at least four years.

Posted: **Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:30 pm**

Posted: **Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:12 pm**

It’s that enchanting smugness, you have to love.

Posted: **Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:36 pm**

Posted: **Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:10 pm**

Bet51987 wrote:@Spidey. At one time you seemed like a good guy...

sorry you've lost me. what?

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:05 am**

Roid, at one time I too was one of the good guys so I understand well what she means. It would seem not agreeing with her makes you a bad guy.

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2010 7:26 am**

woodchip wrote:It would seem not agreeing with her makes you a bad guy.

I feel that its not a matter of disagreement, but disagreeableness. The country is becoming more and more politically polarized, and we are seeing that reflected here. BOTH sides seem highly likely to turn to personal insults instead of addressing the issues at hand.

We all need to realize that people can disagree with us and still be ok people.

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2010 7:40 am**

Kilarin wrote:
woodchip wrote:It would seem not agreeing with her makes you a bad guy.
I feel that its not a matter of disagreement, but disagreeableness. The country is becoming more and more politically polarized, and we are seeing that reflected here. BOTH sides seem highly likely to turn to personal insults instead of addressing the issues at hand.

We all need to realize that people can disagree with us and still be ok people.

You might have a point except I don't see anyone else categorizing posters into "good guys/bad guys". At some point we have all disagree'd with a board member yet I don't see the vitriol that occurs when someone starts disagreeing with Bee.

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:25 am**

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:35 am**

He who devotes sixteen hours a day to hard study may become at sixty as wise as he thought himself at twenty.

Mary Wilson Little

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:43 am**

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:49 am**

woodchip wrote:You might have a point except I don't see anyone else categorizing posters into "good guys/bad guys".

Really? The conservatives here (myself included) frequently portray Obama, the liberal press, and congress, as evil idiots destroying the very structure of our country. We've even had comments recently discussing whether we need a violent overthrow. And if you are talking about dividing the forum members into good guys/bad guys I've seen plenty of negative personal comments aimed at the more liberal forum members.

woodchip wrote:At some point we have all disagree'd with a board member yet I don't see the vitriol that occurs when someone starts disagreeing with Bee.

I'm not denying it happens on both sides. But lets take this thread as an example. Bettina has certainly expressed her dissatisfaction with the Republican party, and how happy she is with Obama.
Several people address the issues, but then we get a personal comment about how "smug" she is. When Bettina replies, The only personally hostile reply she makes is aimed at the only personally hostile reply she received. And we are right on track to escalate from there into a flame war instead of a profitable discussion.

I'm not trying to point fingers, I think everyone (myself included I'm sure) has been doing this. I think we would all be better off if we backed down on the personal attacks and went back to being friends discussing issues we disagree on.

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:53 am**

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:27 am**

Kilarin wrote: But lets take this thread as an example............ And we are right on track to escalate from there into a flame war instead of a profitable discussion.

This thread was destined to never have a profitable discussion.

Obama, thankfully, gave up the thought of working with the "Party of No" and got health reform passed. Then bypassed another Republican 200 day obstruction and seated 15 nominees. Then, on to Afghanistan to boost the morale of our troops, and next week works on new regulations for Wall Street. After that, it's education overhaul, getting our troops out of Iraq, and continuing to move away from the stone age.

It's become clearer each day that the "Make Obama Fail" mantra which is basically blocking any and all Democratic efforts to actually move this country forward... isn't working that well. Which reminds me of Sarah Palin's "How's that hope n change workin for ya" line. Now the Democrats can proudly tell her... "It's working fine. How's that new job as Alaska's tour guide working for ya".

there is NO discussion there. there is NO INTENT on discussion there. her SOLE intent was to rag on the RNC and all the RNC supporters on this board. it was to attempt to rub their faces into the fact the Obama is doing things. this thread was a flame thread and she is reaping what she is sowing. flame on

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:14 am**

Cuda wrote:there is NO discussion there. there is NO INTENT on discussion there. her SOLE intent was to rag on the RNC and all the RNC supporters on this board. it was to attempt to rub their faces into the fact the Obama is doing things. this thread was a flame thread and she is reaping what she is sowing. flame on

I think Obama's health care bill was a big mistake that made things worse not better. I think that Obama's continuation of the bailout approved under Bush was ANOTHER big mistake that is devaluing our money supply and destabilizing our entire economy. And he can't blame Bush for the idiocy of trying to punish the banks for TAKING the bailout money that they were forced to. That's entirely his own stupidity.

Obama promised to get us out of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he has completely failed to do so. Obama promised to shut down Guantanimo Bay. It's still there. Obama promised to reverse the civil rights abuses and expansions of executive power that George W. Bush implemented, but instead he has (as I predicted) expanded upon them.

It's become clearer each day that Obama isn't about "change", He's just more of the same. Another politician messing things up.

This makes me sad. I think I'll get online tonight, bad wrist or no, and die in the mines. It fits the mood.

Now then, I just posted something very similar to what Bettina did. Just from my Libertarian perspective instead of her Democrat one. But still an attack on politicians and political parties. So is my post an invitation to discussion of the topics or the beginning of a flame war?

I must admit, I kinda ENJOY pointing out the stupidity of politicians and political parties. I'd hate to discover I can't do it anymore without starting a personal attack flame war.

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:25 am**

SURE \"IF\" she had posted that way we could have a discussion. but she chose instead to post a flame rant. right now you and I are having a discussion, with no flaming intended. it's not \"WHAT\" the persons says it's \"HOW\" they say it thats dictates the tone of any discussion.

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:42 am**

Cuda wrote:it's not "WHAT" the persons says it's "HOW" they say it thats dictates the tone of any discussion.

I'm not seeing the difference, except that she said good things about Obama and I said bad things. She said bad things about the Republican party, I said bad things about both parties. Well, mainly aimed at the presidents, but I have plenty of bad things to say about the Democratic party itself if we need them to make the point.

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:46 am**

The difference is you are not known to dodge a challenge to your position she is....

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:03 am**

Kilarin wrote:
Cuda wrote:it's not "WHAT" the persons says it's "HOW" they say it thats dictates the tone of any discussion.
I'm not seeing the difference,

Kilarin wrote:I feel that its not a matter of disagreement, but disagreeableness.

there is your difference. she does not disagree with people, but is disagreeable with them

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:30 am**

Cuda wrote:she does not disagree with people, but is disagreeable with them

Why is it being disagreeable when she calls the RNC the "Party of No". But it's not being disagreeable when I say "Obama isn't about 'change', He's just more of the same. Another politician messing things up."

If I had said that the democrats were the "Party of Spend" would that have been any different?

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:24 pm**

Kilarin wrote:
Cuda wrote:she does not disagree with people, but is disagreeable with them
Why is it being disagreeable when she calls the RNC the "Party of No". But it's not being disagreeable when I say "Obama isn't about 'change', He's just more of the same. Another politician messing things up."

If I had said that the democrats were the "Party of Spend" would that have been any different?

In my mind certainly it would be. The republicans are big spenders just like the democrats so it wouldn't be fair to single out democrats as the party of big spending.
When you say Obama isn't about change you are correct, he ran on being different and isn't even close to delivering on that promise so you are correct in that assessment.

In the context Bee uses 'the party of no' she is incorrect because the republicans didn't say no to health care reform, much of the bill Bee credits Obama for bringing us is republican ideas they came up with as an alternative to HillaryCare back in the Clinton administration. They said no when it became clear Obama/Pelosi/Reid were putting in a bunch of liberal crap in the legislation. Once it was decided by the democrats that this was purely a political contest and not a reform effort they went into a prevent defense, pure politics on both sides.
Bee refuses to discuss that and when I offered her proof that even liberals admit as much she gives lame excuses and runs off trolling and gloating in other threads.

She doesn't want discussion and she isn't catching any more grief than she deserves and I think she knows that too. She is like the kid with her fingers in her ears chanting 'Na Na NA Na NA...I can't hear you!'

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:35 pm**

Bet51987 wrote:
Kilarin wrote:
woodchip wrote:It would seem not agreeing with her makes you a bad guy.
I feel that its not a matter of disagreement, but disagreeableness. The country is becoming more and more politically polarized, and we are seeing that reflected here. BOTH sides seem highly likely to turn to personal insults instead of addressing the issues at hand.

We all need to realize that people can disagree with us and still be ok people.
People can disagree with me all they want as long as it's done out in the open where I have a chance to defend myself if needed. With the exception of a few, most people here are ok people in my book.

I don't like dragging Lothar into this but he's a guy whose rightfully called me to task more than once but he's still a very OK guy with me.

Bee

She is just young, she has read all she is going to read, and her principles are liberal. They wear it like a badge of honer and she is caught up in it. If you are not a liberal then you are either wrong, an enemy to the country or just plain retarded.
She will never understand the Constitution as a whole because she believes it to be wrong. Only certain parts count the other parts need to be changed even if most of the people in this country want it left alone, as it is. It is there for a reason whether it is liked or not.

I don't like dragging Lothar - Then don't do it, but its to late for that now.

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:15 pm**

So Kilarin, somebody makes a smug comment, and somebody points that out…that’s a bad thing? She just got finished calling people here “DBB Jerks” (in another thread) and now she expects civility.

Look up the word “smug” and tell me it doesn’t apply to this thread, then tell me how “Jerk” applies to the members here.

What goes around comes around…

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:31 pm**

Spidey wrote:then tell me how “Jerk” applies to the members here.

What goes around comes around…

I'll admit that I've been a Jerk to her, as much as she has been to me.

Spidey, Agreed what goes around come around.

a couple of quote for you to live by Bee

The greater our knowledge increases the more our ignorance unfolds.
John F. Kennedy

Not ignorance, but ignorance of ignorance, is the death of knowledge.
Alfred North Whitehead

never be afraid to learn

this one I threw in for good measure

Whenever you argue with another wiser than yourself in order that others may admire your wisdom, they will discover your ignorance.
Saadi

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2010 3:08 pm**

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2010 5:16 pm**

Party of no, Party of No! Barack.

I swear that sounds JUST like my parrot. Gotta remind myself to turn MSNBC off at night so my bird doesn't get indoctrinated.

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:06 pm**

Will Robinson wrote:The republicans are big spenders just like the democrats so it wouldn't be fair to single out democrats as the party of big spending.

Oh, I absolutely agree. But I don't think saying something wrong is a deliberate attempt to start a personal flame war. Politically wrong is not the same as personal attacks.

Spidey wrote:somebody makes a smug comment, and somebody points that out that's a bad thing?

I'm just not certain how useful it is. Tell her why you think she's wrong, and the conversation MIGHT progress. Tell her she's smug and it doesn't go anywhere.

Spidey wrote:She just got finished calling people here "DBB Jerks" (in another thread) and now she expects civility.
...
What goes around comes around...

CUDA wrote:I'll admit that I've been a Jerk to her, as much as she has been to me.
Spidey, Agreed what goes around come around.

Like I said, I'm not trying to point fingers. I think everyone has been doing this, all sides. My point is that if we don't STOP it, then it will just keep coming around and around and around.

Bettina wrote:"Party of No"

If the "Party of No" really said NO more often, I might start supporting them. No to more taxes. No to more government interference and power. No to more bailouts. etc. They aren't "NO" enough for my taste. More the "Party of No to Obama and Yes to everything else"

Bettina wrote:I find it funny when some here call Obama the "Messiah or Hussein" etc, and even have unflattering avatars of Obama but get all bent out of shape when I call republicans the party of no.

Valid point in my opinion.

Bettina wrote: Surely, a republican forum.

We still have a few liberals. And several of us are either outright Libertarian or lean that way.

A forum of all Republicans would be very boring.

IveGotSarahPalinPinups wrote:
SuperConservativeDude wrote:
LimbaughIsMyIdol wrote:
BushLover wrote:
RepublicanAtHeart wrote:I hate Obama!
+1
Amen! +2!
+3 and X2!!!
I agree to the power of 10!

VERY boring.

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:52 pm**

Bee, I gave you a source, a liberal source at that....including Nancy Pelosi herself as one of the links and you ignored it all. Then later when I brought it up again you said you would look into it but didn't have time right then.... as it turns out you were apparently too busy trolling your arrogant but ill informed DNC talking points in other threads to look into the possibility you were wrong.

It's more than just a little disingenuous to pretend you are open to the concept now. Your posturing doesn't work with me.

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:11 pm**

Bet51987 wrote:
TechPro wrote:... I said stuff ...
TechPro. I understand what you're saying but this is predominately a Democrat bashing site and I'm just giving alternate views. I'm not that blind that I don't see corruption in both parties but I also see which side is trying to help people.

Bee

Bee, I appreciate you responding directly to my comments. Thank you.

Yes, this site does seem to be doing a lot of Democrat bashing (they did the same in reverse when the Republicans were 'in power') currently.

One thing that really irritates me with Obama and the Democrats that side with him ... is how they went about making the motions of going to the table to negotiate with the Republicans and went through the motions of joining the Republicans at the negotiating table in a visible act of being bipartisan ... and then didn't negotiate at all. Didn't work with or come to a common ground with the Republicans ... and instead FORCED the Democrat party line down everyone's throats. That was dirty pool/politics/leadership/whatever.

As for the Republicans refusing to 'give' ... would you give at all if your opponent was refusing to budge or even discuss rationally your point of view? That's why the Republicans then refused to budge on their standing and the whole thing became a gigantic political pissing contest.

It doesn't take a political or government genius to understand that anytime politics is handled in that manner ... the people lose, no matter how well intentioned the whole thing started.

That's my opinion. This people is on the losing side because both parties failed to serve because they (both) failed to negotiate in a bipartisan manner.

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:28 pm**

Well Bet, the Dems may not get ANYTHING done in the Senate now since the Rethuglicans are invoking a little known Senate rule that essentially brings things to a screeching halt at 2:00PM Washington time, all at the power of their childish whim. They've even blocked important meetings with military officials concerning Afghanistan policy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/2 ... 11639.html

I may not particularly like the Dems Health Care Bill, but the Rethuglicans are behaving like little spoiled brats that didn't get their way throwing a major temper tantrum. I guess all the right-wingers here will be very happy with the gridlock.

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:06 pm**

Too bad you guys don't have some kindof \"double dissolution\" clause to keep these stale-locks from happening.

But since you're all crying foul - i guess you do, and you just got served. lol

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:23 pm**

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:00 pm**

Yea it's just outrageous that members of one party would use obscure rules to steamroll the other party. Who would have ever thought of doing such a thing?!?

Posted: **Tue Mar 30, 2010 7:18 am**

tunnelcat wrote:I guess all the right-wingers here will be very happy with the gridlock.

Actually, I think the country is safest when neither party in congress can get anything done.

Posted: **Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:11 pm**

Unfortunately, some work needs to get done. BUT, if they're going to slack off at 2:00PM every day, I want them to take a pay cut and refund my tax money!

Posted: **Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:41 pm**

Bettina, I just want to say that if you grew up next door to me you'd probably have some closer views to me. A lot of people on these boards think I'm a lunatic extremist, but my voice is a fair representation of my entire community. I live in simple rural America, you sound like (note sound like, as you pointed out I don't know you) you live in upscale suburbia. I'm beginning to understand more and more how our environments shape us. Perfect example: Why the heck would you care about carbon taxes? Taxing bovine gas emissions doesn't seem like it would matter to you a bit, and with your upbringing it probably shouldn't. But the cattle industry is a huge part of my life. Sorry if I act like jerk some times myself, I don't understand how you can feel the way you do about the Democrats and their agenda, but to me it stinks to high heaven. I think you and I are the polar extremes of this website and we catch the same kinda flak from both sides and I know how you feel in that respect.

Posted: **Thu Apr 01, 2010 10:14 am**

Bet51987 wrote:
woodchip wrote:Roid, at one time I too was one of the good guys.
Yes you were. But then you twisted something I said at .net by pulling it out of context, turning it into a lie, and posting it at .com where I wasn't a member and unable to defend what I said. Even when others jumped on you for that you made matters worse by sending me a PM defending the lie.
That's why I will continue to ignore you.

Lets clear this up. First off I posted verbatim what you said and then added my commentary. While some jumped others agreed. You were always able to join the board and defend yourself so don't use this as a excuse. Lastly I PM'd you after you PM'd me so lets not act like I went after you via PM. Anyone and everyone here is free to go to the other board and judge for themselves.

Now as to how wonderful this health care deal is, Dem. representative John Dingell summed it up quite well:

"Let me remind you this [Americans allegedly dying because of lack of universal health care] has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people."

So now you see the real purpose of health care is nothing more than a vehicle to control the saps like Bee who fawn over their puppet masters and like good drone bees, suck up the exudate from their liberal royalty masters.

DescentBB

Rant warning

Rant warning

Re: Rant warning

Re: Rant warning

Re: Rant warning

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: